even worse freshman in college, i take this test to see if i still have to take remedial classes, they tell me i dont need to take remedial math because i scored well enough on my SATs but i still get stuck in it -__-

The first sounds like a descriptive paper which is odd for college and I think you are more than capable of doing that. As for the second, you are going to have to find research this but here you go:

"Gun ownership is a uniquely American right which has, for hundreds of years, afforded Americans the ability to protect themselves and their families from harm, as well as offer them the opportunity to feel safe from the potential threat of tyrannical governing body."

That's off the top of my head, I am sure if I were doing this myself it would be better but you can use this as a base.

Anyone that considers themself very opinionated, please help me. I tend to be "on the fence" too much. Its a simple question really, PM me. +rep

Personally, I'd just draw a comparison to any recent history of an outright banning of anything and how much effect it had on use. Then I'd point out the wanton hypocrisy that would be present if guns were banned but remained in police forces and local military presences.

Sure, guns are a highly dangerous item that has somewhat limited use. But if they're banned, the highly lucrative gun trade is going to be taken over by crime syndicates and would only serve to foster distrust between citizen and government. So long as the idea that the gov't is in place to work for the people is widely held, prohibitions of most things don't make much sense.

Personally, I'd just draw a comparison to any recent history of an outright banning of anything and how much effect it had on use. Then I'd point out the wanton hypocrisy that would be present if guns were banned but remained in police forces and local military presences.

Sure, guns are a highly dangerous item that has somewhat limited use. But if they're banned, the highly lucrative gun trade is going to be taken over by crime syndicates and would only serve to foster distrust between citizen and government. So long as the idea that the gov't is in place to work for the people is widely held, prohibitions of most things don't make much sense.

Agreed, that's what I wrote about. I have a new topic. I shall PM you.

I think that the Rooney Rule is a pretty ripe topic, personally, but I also know that people still walk on enough eggshells on those kinds of topics that whatever you write could be written off as insensitive or whatever else.

My feeling on the Rooney Rule is that it makes a lot more sense at a lower level of organization (that it, it makes a lot more sense to keep prejudices from impacting what kind of people can enter the coaching industry at the lower levels, like as assistants in college teams and such). But that is so low profile that no one gets brownie points from inacting a rule like that. I firmly disbelieve that the current Rooney Rule in the NFL has any real impact. There's too much money in success and there's too many successful minority coaches to suggest that teams are consciously ignoring legitimate candidates based on race.

Personally, I'd dedicate some part of your paper (towards the end of it) to suggest a possibly more effective sort of rule than required interview processes. I like the idea of implementing some sort of college thing, since I think it needs it far worse than the NFL does, but the only thing I think the current form of the rule won't have any affect anywhere.

I think that the Rooney Rule is a pretty ripe topic, personally, but I also know that people still walk on enough eggshells on those kinds of topics that whatever you write could be written off as insensitive or whatever else.

My feeling on the Rooney Rule is that it makes a lot more sense at a lower level of organization (that it, it makes a lot more sense to keep prejudices from impacting what kind of people can enter the coaching industry at the lower levels, like as assistants in college teams and such). But that is so low profile that no one gets brownie points from inacting a rule like that. I firmly disbelieve that the current Rooney Rule in the NFL has any real impact. There's too much money in success and there's too many successful minority coaches to suggest that teams are consciously ignoring legitimate candidates based on race.

Personally, I'd dedicate some part of your paper (towards the end of it) to suggest a possibly more effective sort of rule than required interview processes. I like the idea of implementing some sort of college thing, since I think it needs it far worse than the NFL does, but the only thing I think the current form of the rule won't have any affect anywhere.

That's what I was thinking of doing. Part of my conclusion and recommendations would be to change the current Rooney Rule at the NFL level. Instead of one minority candidate being interviewed per HC job available, I believe that the rule should be changed to where a minority candidate would need to be interviewed for every white interviewee. I believe too many NFL teams interview one minority and they are done. By doing this they protect themselves legally, but they are not really adhering to the spirit of the rule. Like any business in the NFL, people should have equal oppurtunity rights. Since there are so few minority HC in the NFL and NCAA and have been in the past, the rule should be changed so a minority must be interviewed for every white interviewee.

Well, I don't want to jump all over you here, but I think your addition to the rule just makes it worse. Equal opportunity and equal treatment are important ideals that should be protected, but that's not what any iteration of such a rule upholds. It forces equal attention in a very silly way.

It's not the NFL's job to make minority coaching candidates feel special. It's their job to keep teams from being directly discriminatory in hiring practices. I don't think many NFL teams are doing such these days, especially considering that 2 of the last 3 Superbowl champions were lead by minority head coaches.

If a sort of ratio has to be managed, it should be managed at much lower level, so as to give a wide variety of people fair access into the industry of football coaching or management. For example, I would be much more willing for a Medical School to have an imposed application ratio or even admissions ratio than for an actual Hospital to have a hiring ratio.

Well, I don't want to jump all over you here, but I think your addition to the rule just makes it worse. Equal opportunity and equal treatment are important ideals that should be protected, but that's not what any iteration of such a rule upholds. It forces equal attention in a very silly way.

It's not the NFL's job to make minority coaching candidates feel special. It's their job to keep teams from being directly discriminatory in hiring practices. I don't think many NFL teams are doing such these days, especially considering that 2 of the last 3 Superbowl champions were lead by minority head coaches.

If a sort of ratio has to be managed, it should be managed at much lower level, so as to give a wide variety of people fair access into the industry of football coaching or management. For example, I would be much more willing for a Medical School to have an imposed application ratio or even admissions ratio than for an actual Hospital to have a hiring ratio.

I see what you are saying.

My view disagrees with you on the second paragraph. Yes, there is a rule where one minority coach must be interviewed, and two black coaches have one a SB recently. However, when you look at publisized interviews for vacant HC jobs I think its evident the current rule is not enough. Look at the Jets job alone. Brian Shot, Rex Ryan, Jag, Spag, and Meeks are the only interviews I know. May have been more, I dont have the access. Anyways that ratio os 4-1 white to minority. I could also get into how succession plans in the NFL should be banned because it basically makes the Rooney Rule not exist.

I believe that are plenty of qualified candidates out there, but one interview per job is not enough exposure. The more minority candidates that are interviewed equals more oppurtunity. Even if they still don't get hired, impressions and word of mouth travels. Another AD or owner might be willing to take a chance.

I understand your point on the hospital med school anology, but if the hospital was hiring 80-20 white to minority employees would you not think there is an equal oppurtunity problem.

80-20 is the highest it has ever been in the NFL and in any other form of business this isn't acceptable.

The fact that the NCAA has less than 1% of its HC minority is telling me that AD's are not giving equal oppurtunity. At the very least if the Rooney Rule cannot be changed in the NFL, at least give this form of the rule a chance at the NCAA level. Think about it this way, the more minority coaches given a chance at the NCAA level means the possibility of guys going from HC in the SEC/Pac 10/Big 10 to the NFL. It could be like you said a gateway into the HC business for minorities.

You're looking at this the wrong way. I couldn't give less of a crap about ratio's.

The question is simple. Has the Rooney Rule led directly the hiring of a minority coach? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest as such.

The Steelers would have interviewed Tomlin anyway. The Colts would have interviewed Dungy anyway. The interviews that the Rooney Rule causes tend to be throwaway interviews as far as anyone can tell. Al Davis called Winston Moss on the telephone for a brief interview to fulfill his obligation to the Rooney Rule.

So if the Rooney Rule isn't doing anything to combat racist hiring practices, then what is it doing that is productive? If the answer is nothing, then why should it exist?

Would I like to see more minority coaches in general (especially at the college level)? Absolutely. Do I think that the Rooney Rule will help that? Definitely not. It's putting a media friendly rule in the limelight by placing it only on the most high profile coaching job. If you want to combat the sort of thing the Rooney Rule theoretically combats, you need to make it affect a more base and essential part of the way NFL teams hire football coaches of all kinds.

Right now the Rooney Rule is ineffective not because it isn't ambitious enough in it's details, but because the whole form is mis-constructed. Don't strong arm teams into making more mock interviews to satisfy public interest groups, try and attack the issue at a more base issue to help the ratio of coaches moving forward.

You're looking at this the wrong way. I couldn't give less of a crap about ratio's.

The question is simple. Has the Rooney Rule led directly the hiring of a minority coach? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest as such.

The Steelers would have interviewed Tomlin anyway. The Colts would have interviewed Dungy anyway. The interviews that the Rooney Rule causes tend to be throwaway interviews as far as anyone can tell. Al Davis called Winston Moss on the telephone for a brief interview to fulfill his obligation to the Rooney Rule.

So if the Rooney Rule isn't doing anything to combat racist hiring practices, then what is it doing that is productive? If the answer is nothing, then why should it exist?

Would I like to see more minority coaches in general (especially at the college level)? Absolutely. Do I think that the Rooney Rule will help that? Definitely not. It's putting a media friendly rule in the limelight by placing it only on the most high profile coaching job. If you want to combat the sort of thing the Rooney Rule theoretically combats, you need to make it affect a more base and essential part of the way NFL teams hire football coaches of all kinds.

Right now the Rooney Rule is ineffective not because it isn't ambitious enough in it's details, but because the whole form is mis-constructed. Don't strong arm teams into making more mock interviews to satisfy public interest groups, try and attack the issue at a more base issue to help the ratio of coaches moving forward.

I am getting what you are saying but I don't have a conclusion.

I need to research the equal oppurtunity employment website and all. However, from feedback from family/friends I understand that large companies have to meet a certain ratio or quota of minorities in order to fall in line with equal oppurtunity laws. Maybe I am misinformed or am simply misunderstanding the rule, but that is what my main argument is (i'm sure you understand that already).

If I change the base issue here, where do I go with it because I'm not sure?

Why are minority HC not getting these jobs if its not bad hiring practices?

Why are minority HC not getting these jobs if its not bad hiring practices?

Well, I can tell you that Singletary didnt get hired in Dallas because they felt that he didnt have a staff ready of coaches he would want to hire had they offered him the job. I think for the most part it's a lack of candidates who are ready to be a head coach. They have to get in the door before they can build up experience and reputation.

Thanks Brent. That's why I said that if the NFL wants to take immediate action, they should create a program that helps more minorities get their foot in the door. Simply expanding the field of minority candidates would go a long way to helping that ratio.

Well, I can tell you that Singletary didnt get hired in Dallas because they felt that he didnt have a staff ready of coaches he would want to hire had they offered him the job. I think for the most part it's a lack of candidates who are ready to be a head coach. They have to get in the door before they can build up experience and reputation.

That's my conclusion to why at least the NCAA should have my form of the Rooney Rule.

Give these minority HC a chance at the NCAA level. Similar to guys like Jimmy Johnson, Barry Switzer, Dennis Erickson, Butch Davis, just a few guys off the top of my head. Let them prove they can be a head coach at the NCAA level so maybe they can get a low end NFL job like the Bengals or Raiders.

However when you only got four or five minority HC in the NCAA out of around one hundrer and twenty, where is the chance for these minority coaches to gain experience and build their skills?

Don't say assistant jobs because there have been plenty of minority assistants waiting for their turn and never got it.

Thanks Brent. That's why I said that if the NFL wants to take immediate action, they should create a program that helps more minorities get their foot in the door. Simply expanding the field of minority candidates would go a long way to helping that ratio.

Create what type of program though? How would it work besides helping minorities get their foot in the door?

Create what type of program though? How would it work besides helping minorities get their foot in the door?

What more can the NFL really do besides give people a chance to distinguish themselves? The NFL can't force there to be more legitimate candidates for only 32 positions in the NFL. That's up to the particular candidates.

What more can the NFL really do besides give people a chance to distinguish themselves? The NFL can't force there to be more legitimate candidates for only 32 positions in the NFL. That's up to the particular candidates.

How would the program work though? The NFL assign these interested minorities to small time jobs for every different organization? How would you envision it working?

I know someone who wasnt picked to be in the FBI because they needed to meet a certain quota.

That's what I thought. If there is a "ratio" or "quota" these business much reach, how are NFL franchises and NCAA AD's getting away with this? Less than one percent? 80-20? That isn't equal employment. 60-40, 55-45, 50-50 yeah that is even playing ground.

I seriously cant understand how there is a shortage in minority NFL quality coaches without there being unlawful hiring practices going on here.

I'm sure there are absolutely tons of minority HS HC waiting for their chance to coach in college. If you don't give them a chance at the NCAA level, how are they ever going to have a chance at the NFL level?

How would the program work though? The NFL assign these interested minorities to small time jobs for every different organization? How would you envision it working?

Why not have the NFL take a greater role in the hiring of lower level coordinators? Make a draft where you take coaches from the college ranks? I don't really know, but the NFL needs to hold their teams accountable to public perception, not to some ******* ratio.

They are called a minority for a reason. . . Proportional representation is where it is at, not some 50-50 thing. once there is an even number in population there should be an even number in there, but you have to think about something. How old are these Team Presidents? A lot of them grew up before Civil Rights was accepted, so they have those prejudices. That is where the messed up thing is. They'll invest all loads of money into a workhorse Runningback who is African-American, but they won't hire a coach who is a minority because they don't think they have what it takes to run a team. Time is the only cure for this type of thing, as you get Owners and CEO's of teams leaving their teams for younger people, who are less biased.